Being aware of the Western canon is pretty much the place to start for a serious discussion on best things ever in literature, even though you might end up preferring stuff that’s quite different from it.
I strongly disagree, actually. Works that’re part of the Western canon aren’t necessarily the best in the Western literary tradition, and they aren’t necessarily read for their quality—although many of them genuinely are very good. They’re defined more by being influential, and reading them is more about gaining a better understanding of the context of literature: its history and the mechanics of its evolution. People like Shakespeare are to English literature what people like Aristotle are to Western philosophy: not the best by some set of quasi-objective standards, nor the most gratifying to taste, but the headwaters from which later traditions flow. There’s a certain amount of survivorship bias involved, too; Sappho for example was arguably the best Classical Greek poet by her contemporaries’ standards, and we can be almost sure of her influence, but so little of her stuff is left that she’s not a major part of the canon.
There’s an argument to be had over whether this is necessarily the best way to teach or learn about literature, of course, just as we could have the same argument over philosophy. But that’s not really the point.
They’re defined more by being influential, and reading them is more about gaining a better understanding of the context of literature: its history and the mechanics of its evolution.
I’m not disagreeing. The main point is that the literature canon is the most influential starting point for discussing literature that’s considered really very good. Not that the books themselves would necessarily be the best ever.
And for the purposes of the original discussion, it’s not even necessary to find the absolutely best literature ever, only examples of literature that can be considered significantly more skillfully put together than top of the line fanfiction. The Western canon probably manages this.
People like Shakespeare are to English literature what people like Aristotle are to Western philosophy: not the best by some set of quasi-objective standards, nor the most gratifying to taste, but the headwaters from which later traditions flow.
Is this actually the case? Philosophers seem to consider Aristotle really influential and quite outdated, while English lit. people who aren’t decrying him as a dead white male patriarchal oppressor still seem to think Shakespeare was probably the greatest thing ever.
Is this actually the case? Philosophers seem to consider Aristotle really influential and quite outdated, while English lit. people who aren’t decrying him as a dead white male patriarchal oppressor still seem to think Shakespeare was probably the greatest thing ever.
If you asked some modern philosophers to make a list of the greatest philosophers of all time, and then asked English lit professors to make a list of the greatest English writers of all time, the relative rankings of Aristotle and Shakespeare would likely be close to each other (though probably not identical). And I think the reason for this is that they’re ranking—and teaching, and recommending—mainly along lines of influence rather than technical skill or correctness or enjoyment. The precise terms each are described in might be different, but in terms of their place in their fields I think the analogy’s pretty close.
I do think that Shakespeare by most standards would look better than Aristotle relative to his counterparts today: literature was a more mature field in his time than philosophy was in Aristotle’s. But I don’t think he was the most technically skilled writer in English, not by a long shot, and I suspect most literary scholars (Shakespeare scholars excepted) would agree with me.
I strongly disagree, actually. Works that’re part of the Western canon aren’t necessarily the best in the Western literary tradition, and they aren’t necessarily read for their quality—although many of them genuinely are very good. They’re defined more by being influential, and reading them is more about gaining a better understanding of the context of literature: its history and the mechanics of its evolution. People like Shakespeare are to English literature what people like Aristotle are to Western philosophy: not the best by some set of quasi-objective standards, nor the most gratifying to taste, but the headwaters from which later traditions flow. There’s a certain amount of survivorship bias involved, too; Sappho for example was arguably the best Classical Greek poet by her contemporaries’ standards, and we can be almost sure of her influence, but so little of her stuff is left that she’s not a major part of the canon.
There’s an argument to be had over whether this is necessarily the best way to teach or learn about literature, of course, just as we could have the same argument over philosophy. But that’s not really the point.
I’m not disagreeing. The main point is that the literature canon is the most influential starting point for discussing literature that’s considered really very good. Not that the books themselves would necessarily be the best ever.
And for the purposes of the original discussion, it’s not even necessary to find the absolutely best literature ever, only examples of literature that can be considered significantly more skillfully put together than top of the line fanfiction. The Western canon probably manages this.
Is this actually the case? Philosophers seem to consider Aristotle really influential and quite outdated, while English lit. people who aren’t decrying him as a dead white male patriarchal oppressor still seem to think Shakespeare was probably the greatest thing ever.
If you asked some modern philosophers to make a list of the greatest philosophers of all time, and then asked English lit professors to make a list of the greatest English writers of all time, the relative rankings of Aristotle and Shakespeare would likely be close to each other (though probably not identical). And I think the reason for this is that they’re ranking—and teaching, and recommending—mainly along lines of influence rather than technical skill or correctness or enjoyment. The precise terms each are described in might be different, but in terms of their place in their fields I think the analogy’s pretty close.
I do think that Shakespeare by most standards would look better than Aristotle relative to his counterparts today: literature was a more mature field in his time than philosophy was in Aristotle’s. But I don’t think he was the most technically skilled writer in English, not by a long shot, and I suspect most literary scholars (Shakespeare scholars excepted) would agree with me.